HB 2061 study issues final report

HB 2061 STUDY ISSUES FINAL REPORT
Respectfully Submitted By:
The Ad Hoc Blue- Stake/ Underground
Study Group
December 21, 1988
December 21, 1988
The Honorable Carl J. Kunasek
President
Arizona State Senate
1700 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85007
The Honorable Joe Lane
Speaker
Arizona House of ~ epresentatives
1700 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85007
RE: Ad Hoc Blue Stake/ Underground Study Group
HB 2061 Study Issues Final Report.
Dear President Kunasek and Speaker Lane:
Enclosed is the final report from the Ad Hoc Study Group
addressing the seven issues to be studied under HB 2061.
Included in this report are several related issues which
were researched and discussed by the study group.
This report contains a summary outlining the history of the
study group, issues addressed and recommendations. A
detailed discussion of the issues follow this summary.
The Ad Hoc Study Group appreciates the support of the
legislators during the meeting period. The time spent was
extremely beneficial through the exchange of information and
should prove to be helpful in future contractor/ underground
facility owner relationships.
Sincerely,
Ben Luster
Chairman
Ad Hoc Blue Stake/ Underground Study Group
cc: Senator Robert B. Usdane
Representative Jane Dee Hull
Enclosure
PART I; Summary:
History
Issue Overview
Recommendations
T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S
PART 11; Detailed Discussion:
Issues 1, 5 and 6 Discussion
Recommendations
Issue 2 Discussion
Recommendations
Issues 3, 7 Discussion
Recommendations
Issue 4 Discussion
Recommendations
Conclusion
Ad Hoc Study Group Members
Page 1
Pages 2 - 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Pages 7 - 8
Page 9
Pages 9 - 11
Pages 11 - 12
Pages 12 - 14
Pages 14 - 15
Page 16
Pages 17 - 18
PART I
S U M M A R Y
AD HOC BLUE STAKE/ UNDERGROUND STUDY GROUP
HB 2061 STUDY ISSUE FINAL REPORT
SUMMARY
History:
Prior to the passage of HB 2061, a group of Tucson
contractors, underground facility owners and muncipalities
met to discuss the bill and the issues stated in the study
list.
Because of their relationship, the group integrated the
seven issues into four related primary issues, then assigned
each of the four issues to subgroups each headed by a
chairman.
Following this meeting, it was agreed the Phoenix
Underground Contractors Association, Arizona General
Contractors, underground facility owners and all other
interested parties would be requested to attend an
organizational meeting to consolidate their efforts
concerning the bill and study list.
Legislators were contacted by study group members at the
onset of the meetings to inform them of the groups'
intentions and request recognition of the study group.
Upon receiving recognition, the consolidated Phoenix and
Tucson group began their meetings, elected to maintain the
four subgroups established earlier in the Tucson meetings
and selected a chairman, recording secretary and subgroup
chairmen. The meetings continuted through December of 1988.
Issue Overview:
The following discussion provides an overview of the seven
issues as stated in the bill and a summary of the groupls
discussion.
Issues Nos. 1, 5 and 6:
Measures to improve worker safety, issues concerning
liability for damages to facilities and delay, status
of enforcement penalties and other matters handled by
regulatory agencies.
Areas considered for discussion included employer
responsibility for safety training, underground facility
owner responsibilities to mark the location of underground
lines, responsibility of the excavator to request the
location of underground lines and pot hole when necessary;
definition of delay and disruption and the responsibility of
each party, marking gasjelectric facilities differently from
other underground facilities, mitigation of excavators down
time losses, current fines and an enforcement agency that
has unilateral power over all excavators.
After discussing these areas, the study group agreed with
the subgroup to concentrate on the enforcement agency issue,
delay and disruption and marking gas/ electric facilities
differently from other underground facilities.
Through research and discussion, the study group agreed with
the subgroup that many of these areas are presently and
appropriately addressed in the state statute, regulations or
can be resolved on a case by case basis without modification
to HB 2061. The subgroup then concentrated their efforts
on: Marking gas/ electric facilities differently from other
underground facilities, the definition of delay and
disruption and the responsibility of each party, mitigating
excavators' down time losses and a unilateral enforcement
agency.
Issue No. 2:
Issues concerning warning devices, methods, standards
and responsibilities for underground facilities.
Areas researched by this subgroup included above ground
signage of underground facilities, the use of marker tape in
trenches, the responsibilities of excavators and underground
facility owner when excavation activities take place near
underground facilities and locate methods.
Issues Nos. 3 and 7:
Issues concerning design information, construction and
bid specification drawings and records, political
subdivision design responsibility, facility owner
approval of bid plans, design and engineering of
projects involving underground facilities and use of as
built underground facility plans.
The cost involved for each issues considered, how it
relates to the benefit received and the responsibility
for such cost.
Areas discussed included the size, detail and design of the
maps which involved research regarding map elevation, map
profiles and Computer Aided Mapping System ( CAM). Locating
and mapping abandoned facilities, mapping active and
inactive facilities and the cost for each issue was
researched.
Issue No. 4:
Improvements in the blue- stake system, such as one
number statewide, mandatory membership, blue- staking
techniques, excessive requests and enhanced services.
The areas discussed included mandatory membership for
underground facility owners, excessive locate requests,
enhanced locate service, locate marking techniques, a
statewide one call blue- stake telephone number and the
marking of multiple circuits.
RECOMMENDED CHANGES
TO THE UNDERGROUND DIG- IN LAW
1. An enforcement agency with equal authority over all
parties engaged in excavation activities near
underground facilities ( Issue No. 6).
Recommended change to present statute.
2. Mandatory blue- stake membership statewide for
underground facility owners ( Issue No. 4).
Recommended change to present statute.
The remaining areas discussed as stated under each issue in
Part I ( Pages 1 - 3) have been addressed in detail in
Part I1 ( Pages 5 - 15) .
It is the study group's recommendation these remaining areas
can be resolved on a local level through
excavator/ underground facility owner on going discussions.
PART I1
D E T A I L E D D I S C U S S I O N
AD HOC BLUE- STAKE UNDERGROUND STUDY GROUP
HB 2061 STUDY ISSUE FINAL REPORT
DETAILED DISCUSSION
Issues Nos. 1, 5 and 6 ;
his subgroup considered several areas for discussion under
each heading of worker safety, liability issues and
enforcement issues.
Areas discussed under worker safety included:
Responsibility for worker safety training, marking
gas/ electric facilities differently from other underground
facilities, legislating llsafetyliln to contracts when
completion penalties make no provision for down time,
responsibilities of the contractor when excavating near
underground facilities and clarification of what a locate
mark represents.
The subgroup and study group agreed to focus on marking
gas/ electric facilities differently from other underground
facilities. The consensus of the two groups was that all
underground facilities should be treated with equal concern
and that the implementation of a specific standard for
marking and excavation of gas/ electric facilities would
result in worker confusion and therefore present a safety
hazard for excavators.
Areas discussed under the liability issues included the
definition of delay and disruption, mitigate excavators down
time losses, punitive damages for disregard of the statute
and the responsibility for facility damage caused by a
subcontractor ( general contractor/ subcontractor
relationship) .
The subgroup and study group agreed to focus on the
definition of delay and disruption. Due to the variables
involved with each field situation involving delay or
disruption, it would be very difficult to write specific
language to address each condition. The existing statute is
appropriate and provides recourse for all parties concerned.
It was discussed and agreed that a contractor should
mitigate the delay and disruption resulting from down time
caused by an inaccurate blue- stake locate if possible; i. e.,
move to the other side of the street and continue the
excavation.
The areas discussed included current fines may not be
stringent enough to act as a deterrent for wanton disregard
of the statute and an enforcement agency with equal
authority over all parties engaged in excavation activities
near underground facilities.
RECOMMENDATIONS - Issues Nos. 1, 5 and 6:
1. Gas/ electric underground facilities should not be
marked differently.
No change recommended to present statute.
2. The liability issues are appropriately and fairly
addressed by the present statute.
No change recommended to present statute.
3 . An enforcement agency with equal authority over all
parties engaged in excavation activities near
underground facilities.
Recommended change to present statute.
4. On going discussions between contractor, underground
facility owners, municipalities and the enforcement
agency on issues involving underground facilities.
No change recommended to present statute.
Issue No. 2:
Above Ground Siqnaqe
Most recently adopted construction standards require front
lot placement of underground facilities. Because of this,
it is doubtful residents would approve of the placement of
signs in their front yards.
Considering the number of underground facilities utilized to
serve a residential development, it is possible that as many
as nine different signs indicating the various utilities
could be placed in one front yard. An existing subdivision
of one square mile served by underground facilities would
require approximately 2,992 signs to be placed at a cost of
$ 10.00 per sign.
The minimum cost for the material is $ 29,920.00, excluding
installation costs and is prohibitive from an installation
and maintenance prospective ( a mapping system would be
required to identify sign locations and a sign patrol
performed on a regular basis). The sign placement may also
be a hazard to the vehicular and pedestrian traffic and a
problem with vandalism exists.
In addition, it has been proven by the few underground
facility owners required to install signs; i. e., Southwest
Gas Corporation per Department of ran sport at ion
regulations, that signs have not proven to be a deterrent to
dig- ins. An informal survey of fourteen governmental
agencies was performed and the majority of the agencies felt
customerfs complaints of sign installation would cause major
political repercussions and would override any benefit in
deterring dig- ins.
Marker Tape
A survey was sent to several underground facility owners on
the effectiveness of marker tape. Some underground facility
owners discontinued the use of marker tape due to no
decrease in damage to underground facilities. The remaining
underground facility owners utilities who continued to
install marker tape could not confirm any improvement to the
dig- in situation. In the Phoenix and Tucson areas, Jones
Intercable, City of Mesa and U S West Communications install
marker tape and in the past, Salt ~ iver Project installed
marker tape with their facilities.
None of these companies could confirm marker tape to be a
deterrent to dig- ins, in fact, the City of Mesa reported
most cases involving damaged tape also resulted in damaged
underground facilities.
It should be emphasized that tape cannot always be placed
due to some underground facility installation methods; i. e.,
boring, jacking or the use of existing pipes or conduits.
An open trench condition would not exist in these
situations.
The overall effectiveness of the marker tape was also
discussed in the study group's meetings. It was stated that
studies were completed with excavations near marker tape.
The results showed the tape was dug into, however, it was
not discovered until found in the spoil pile. Also reported
were situations where the marker tape had been damaged but
not reported to the underground facility owner. If the
excavator damages the marker tape and does not report the
damage, who then is responsible when the underground
facility owner is subsequently unable to locate the line.
The study group expressed concern over the possibility of
confusing the excavator if he had worked in an area with -
marker tape and then moved into an area without marker tape.
Some contractors in attendance at the study group's meetings
stated they were in favor of the tape, indicating it gave
them additional protection. However, it was agreed
unanimously that marker tape could give excavators a " false
sense of security" and the group felt that marker tape
should not be mandated however could continue to be used on
a voluntary basis.
This subgroup agreed that the employer is responsible for
worker training, ensuring workers perform in a safe manner
and adhering to applicable codes, regulations and statutes.
The underground facility owners are responsible for
underground facility installations, providing locate
information and providing maps when appropriate. This
subgroup also encouraged improvements to: HB 2061
enforcement, locate methods and mandatory membership to the
one call system.
RECOMMENDATIONS - Issue No. 2:
The subgroup and study group agreed to the following:
1. Marker tape should not be mandated but continue to be
used on a voluntary basis. Marker tape is being used
in some areas, however, the study group recognized this
procedure is not a fail safe solution to the reduction
of dig- ins or an added safety precaution to the
excavator.
2. Above ground signage is not recommended due to the
potential hazard to pedestrian and the motoring public,
sign vandalism, adverse public opinion and prohibitive
maintenance costs. These signs are historically not a
deterrent and in addition, the cost would be passed on
to the ratepayer.
Issues Nos. 3 and 7~
Areas discussed include the size, detail and design of
facility maps, elevations, Computer Aided Mapping System
( CAM), mapping abandoned, active and inactive facilities and
the cost associated for each issue.
Through research, it became apparent that it would not be
possible for all underground facility owners to use the same
map scale due to the variety of scales currently in use.
The variety of scales is required to meet specific
operational needs of the various facility owners because of
the number or congestion of the facilities, this often
results in much larger map scales.
The use of one mandated scale for all facility owners would
result in many additional maps due to the large scale
required for congested facilities. While this would be
appropriate for the underground facility owner with a large
number of congested facilities, it would be entirely
unsuitable and extremely cost prohibitive for the facility
owner with minimal or uncongested facilities.
This subgroup investigated the potential for providing
elevations of underground facilities on facility maps and
determined the cost to be prohibitive. The following costs
were developed:
U S West Communications $ 5,735 per mile
Tucson Water $ 5,700 per mile
Arizona Public Service Co. $ 4,167 per mile
Southwest Gas Corporation Over $ 1,800 per mile
City of Mesa $ 7,000 - $ 8,000 per mile
These amounts indicate costs for developing profiles on all
underground projects, obtaining elevations every 100 feet
and at facility crossings and the cost of posting elevations
on as- built and facility maps.
The Computer Aided ~ apping System ( CAM) was discussed and it
was determined that Salt River Project, Arizona Public
Service Company, Tucson Water, City of Mesa and Southwest
Gas Corporation have already started the development
process.
The subgroup and study group agreed that facility owner
approval of bid plans should be limited to public works
projects and road improvenents. At this point, the ' IPublic
Improvement Project Guide" recently developed by the Central
Arizona Coordinating Committee was reviewed because of its
relationship to the study issues; i. e., design information,
construction and bid specification drawings, records and
political subdivision design responsibility. Because this
is a newly developed guide and not entirely proven, the
subgroup and study group agreed a trial period using the
guide should be completed before adoption or reference to
the guide occurs.
Because there is no specific date for commencement of
mapping abandoned facilities provided in HB 2061, the
subgroup questioned the effective date to begin mapping
abandoned facilities. The subgroup agreed that because no
date is provided, the effective date to commence mapping of
abandoned facilities would legally be the effective date of
HB 2061, which is September 20, 1988.
The subgroup raised a question that as of the completion of
this report has not yet been answered: If a facility owner
has abandoned a facility and is no longer financially
responsible for the facility; i. e., not paying taxes, is the
facility owner still legally required to map that abandoned
facility or to notify the excavator that the facility is
abandoned. The study group feels that clarification of this
abandoned line issue is necessary.
Another question discussed but not resolved was: If an
underground facility owner marks an underground facility
abandoned, and this requires an electronic signal or tracer
wire in order to locate and an excavator subsequently digs
through the line breaking the electronic connection, this
resulting in the facility owner being unable to locate that
line in the future. To resolve this situation at least one
utility will be required to maintain a duplicate set of
facility maps in order to identify abandoned facilities.
The study group agreed that underground facility owners must
be able to respond to the excavator and confirm if a
facility is abandoned or inactive. If the underground
facility owner cannot confirm the facility to be inactive,
then the underground facility owner must show the line to- be
active.
The subgroup and study group felt that section 40- 360.30
relating to " installation recordsIf as presently written is
adequate and appropriately describes those records and
therefore, should not be modified.
RECOMMENDATIONS - Issues Nos. 3 and 7:
The subgroup and study group agreed on the following:
1. Underground facility owner approval of bid plans should
be limited to public works projects and road
improvements. The recently completed l1Public
Improvement Project Guide" should be considered for use
by excavators and underground facility owners.
No change recommended to present statute.
2. I1Installation records1I as stated in Section 40- 360.30
should not be modified.
No change recommended to present statute.
3. Because of the different map scale requirements of the
various underground facility owners and the associated
cost for map conversion, one common map should not be
mandated for underground facility maps.
No change recommended to present statute.
4. Because of the prohibitive cost of development,
conversions and implementations, Computer Aided Mapping
should not be mandated for underground facility owners.
No change recommended to present statute.
5. Because of the prohibitive cost, elevations of
underground facilities should not be mandated to
underground facility owners.
No change recommended to present statute.
6. Active and inactive underground facilities will be
identified and verified by each underground facility
owner.
No change recommended to present statute.
Because of the broad scope of Issues Nos. 1, 5 and 6 and
because of the other subgroups had reviewed these issues,
this subgroup recommended it only consider the costs for the
items contained in Issue No. 3. The recommendation was
accepted by the study group.
Issue No. 4:
Mandatory membership was the first issue researched. It was
determined that ~ hio, Pennsylvania, Georgia, ~ alifornia and
Minnesota have mandatory blue- stake membership statutes and
generally there was little objection to the statutes.
The subgroup and the study group support the mandatory
membership approach and agree that consideration should be
given to small underground facility owners by providing for
a limited membership based on the number of customers.
Membership costs for small underground facility owners
should be spread evenly and fairly. Language to address the
blue- stake membership was not finalized as of the date of
this report and requires further clarification.
The subgroup felt that registration with the County
Recorder's Office of an underground utility representative
responsible for locating underground facilities was
ineffective. It was recommended that underground facility
owners register with the Blue Stake Center in their service
territory.
Consideration for contractors belonging to the Blue Stake
Center was also discussed. The general consensus was that
contractors should be encouraged to utilized the blue- stake
center and that mandatory membership may discourage
contractor participation.
It was suggested that contractors list the Blue Stake Center
used on the application for a contractor's license. This.
might add to the depth of awareness of the contractors. The
Arizona Corporation Commission's representative pointed out
that the mandatory membership would not be enforced unless a
fee is charged to the contractors. Increasing the level of
fines for excavators who blatantly violate the law was
discussed, however, it was generally felt that this would
cause an increase to the enforcement agency's personnel
force .
Markinq Techniques
The subgroup felt that it would be a good practice to have
consistent locate marks among the underground facility
owners in a local area. It was suggested a regional
committee be formed to address marking standards and
guidelines. This regional committee could be composed of
two members from the construction business, two members of
underground facility owners, with one member from the
enforcement agency and one member from the Blue Stake
Center.
Identification of multiple circuits by an underground
facility owner beginning January 1, 1989 was discussed.
Consideration by the study group was given to the Utility
Location and Coordinating Council's ( ULCC) guidelines.
However it was agreed not to recommend adoption of these
guidelines because they contain a variety of standards which
may be revised on a regular basis. It was agreed that
marking techniques should be addressed at a local level with
no change recommended to the present statute.
Excessive Requests/ Enhanced Service
The subgroup and study group agreed that the contractor
should limit his locate requests to the amount of work that
can be realistically completed in the 5 and 10- day time
frame. Enhanced services for unique job situations should be
discussed with the contractor on a case by case basis. Both
of these issues should be handled at the local level with no
change recommended to the present statute. These items are
recommended to the agenda items for the continuing
discussions between contractor and utility representative.
A suggestion was made to eliminate the 5- day marking period
and keep the 10- day period. This was not discussed in great
detail and should be brought up in the proposed continuing
meetings.
A statewide one call telephone number for blue- stake was
researched for the purpose of simplicity and awareness
level. This project was found to be cost prohibitive and
therefore, the subgroup and study group did not proceed on
this issue.
RECOMMENDATIONS - Issue No. 4:
The subgroup and study group agreed on the following:
1. Mandatory membership for underground facility owner.
Recommended change to present statute.
2. Excessive blue- stake requests and enhanced services are
handled at the local level.
No change recommended to present statute.
3. Marking techniques-- multiple circuits should be
identified by the underground facility owner starting
January 1, 1989.
No change recommended to present statute.
CONCLUSION:
The study group recommended two modifications to the present
statute which addresses mandatory membership to the Blue
Stake Center for underground facility owners and an
enforcement agency with equal authority over all parties
engaged in excavation activities.
It was agreed to by the subgroups and study group that most
of the areas discussed under each issue can either be
resolved at the local level or is presently and
appropriately addressed by a regulation, code or statute.
On going discussions between contractors, underground
facility owners, municipalities and the enforcement agency
are strongly recommended.
The study group appreciated the interest and time devoted to
the Ad Hoc Study Group by the study commission members. The
subgroup and study group members offer their assistance on
any issues that require further assistance.
Study Group Chairman:
Recording Secretary:
Issues 1, 5 and 6:
Chairman :
Chuck Desrosiers
Members :
Bettye Austin
Bill Burkel
Wayne Ekstrom
David Furrey
Conrad Gissort
Tamara Huddleston
Elaine Moffitt
Darrell Pischoff
Danny Weakland/
Chuck Hudson
Donna Wilson
Issue NO. 2:
Chairman:
Roger Eagle
Members :
Lance Barger
Dave Buchwald
Bill Burkel
Larry Daniel
Chuck Desrosiers
David Furrey
Jack Kearns
Ben Luster
Wayne Privett
Ben Luster
Luster contracting
Bonnie Coffey
Arizona Public Service Co.
Salt River Project
U S West Communications
Tucson Electric Power
Southwest Gas Corporation
Flowing Wells Irrigation District
City of Tucson- Water
Arizona Public Service Company
Tucson Underground Contractor's
Association
City of Mesa
Arizona Corporation
Commission
U S West Communications
U S West Communications
Jones Intercable
Trico Electric
Tucson Electric Power
Arizona Public Service Company
Salt River Pro j ect
Flowing Wells Irrigation
District
City of Mesa
Luster Contracting
Southwest Gas Corporation
Issues Nos. 3 and 7:
Chairman:
Gordan Nelson
Members :
Mike Bentley
Elton Buell
Neil Coffey
David Furrey
Tom La Rose
Rick Meyer
Keith Nath
Herb Sautter
Eric Vaughn
Nelson Pipeline
Nelco Construction
Southwest Gas Corporation
Arizona Public Service Company
Flowing Wells Irrigation District
Salt River Project
City of Tucson - Water
City of Mesa
City of Tucson
U S West Communications
Issue No. 4:
Chairman:
Jim Vincent Southwest Gas Corporation
Members :
Lance Barger
David Furrey
Delbert Garst
George Hilyard,
Beverly Hitt
Tom La Rose
Kim Lilly
Carlos Martinez
Dave Nicholson
John Short
Ed Snell
Jones Intercable
Flowing Wells Irrigation District
City of Mesa
Jr. U S West Communications
U S West Communications
Salt River Project
Arizona Blue Stake
Tucson Electric Power
City of Tucson
Arizona Public Service Company
Tricon Contracting

Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.

Copyright to this resource is held by the creating agency and is provided here for educational purposes only. It may not be downloaded, reproduced or distributed in any format without written permission of the creating agency. Any attempt to circumvent the access controls placed on this file is a violation of United States and international copyright laws, and is subject to criminal prosecution.

HB 2061 STUDY ISSUES FINAL REPORT
Respectfully Submitted By:
The Ad Hoc Blue- Stake/ Underground
Study Group
December 21, 1988
December 21, 1988
The Honorable Carl J. Kunasek
President
Arizona State Senate
1700 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85007
The Honorable Joe Lane
Speaker
Arizona House of ~ epresentatives
1700 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85007
RE: Ad Hoc Blue Stake/ Underground Study Group
HB 2061 Study Issues Final Report.
Dear President Kunasek and Speaker Lane:
Enclosed is the final report from the Ad Hoc Study Group
addressing the seven issues to be studied under HB 2061.
Included in this report are several related issues which
were researched and discussed by the study group.
This report contains a summary outlining the history of the
study group, issues addressed and recommendations. A
detailed discussion of the issues follow this summary.
The Ad Hoc Study Group appreciates the support of the
legislators during the meeting period. The time spent was
extremely beneficial through the exchange of information and
should prove to be helpful in future contractor/ underground
facility owner relationships.
Sincerely,
Ben Luster
Chairman
Ad Hoc Blue Stake/ Underground Study Group
cc: Senator Robert B. Usdane
Representative Jane Dee Hull
Enclosure
PART I; Summary:
History
Issue Overview
Recommendations
T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S
PART 11; Detailed Discussion:
Issues 1, 5 and 6 Discussion
Recommendations
Issue 2 Discussion
Recommendations
Issues 3, 7 Discussion
Recommendations
Issue 4 Discussion
Recommendations
Conclusion
Ad Hoc Study Group Members
Page 1
Pages 2 - 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Pages 7 - 8
Page 9
Pages 9 - 11
Pages 11 - 12
Pages 12 - 14
Pages 14 - 15
Page 16
Pages 17 - 18
PART I
S U M M A R Y
AD HOC BLUE STAKE/ UNDERGROUND STUDY GROUP
HB 2061 STUDY ISSUE FINAL REPORT
SUMMARY
History:
Prior to the passage of HB 2061, a group of Tucson
contractors, underground facility owners and muncipalities
met to discuss the bill and the issues stated in the study
list.
Because of their relationship, the group integrated the
seven issues into four related primary issues, then assigned
each of the four issues to subgroups each headed by a
chairman.
Following this meeting, it was agreed the Phoenix
Underground Contractors Association, Arizona General
Contractors, underground facility owners and all other
interested parties would be requested to attend an
organizational meeting to consolidate their efforts
concerning the bill and study list.
Legislators were contacted by study group members at the
onset of the meetings to inform them of the groups'
intentions and request recognition of the study group.
Upon receiving recognition, the consolidated Phoenix and
Tucson group began their meetings, elected to maintain the
four subgroups established earlier in the Tucson meetings
and selected a chairman, recording secretary and subgroup
chairmen. The meetings continuted through December of 1988.
Issue Overview:
The following discussion provides an overview of the seven
issues as stated in the bill and a summary of the groupls
discussion.
Issues Nos. 1, 5 and 6:
Measures to improve worker safety, issues concerning
liability for damages to facilities and delay, status
of enforcement penalties and other matters handled by
regulatory agencies.
Areas considered for discussion included employer
responsibility for safety training, underground facility
owner responsibilities to mark the location of underground
lines, responsibility of the excavator to request the
location of underground lines and pot hole when necessary;
definition of delay and disruption and the responsibility of
each party, marking gasjelectric facilities differently from
other underground facilities, mitigation of excavators down
time losses, current fines and an enforcement agency that
has unilateral power over all excavators.
After discussing these areas, the study group agreed with
the subgroup to concentrate on the enforcement agency issue,
delay and disruption and marking gas/ electric facilities
differently from other underground facilities.
Through research and discussion, the study group agreed with
the subgroup that many of these areas are presently and
appropriately addressed in the state statute, regulations or
can be resolved on a case by case basis without modification
to HB 2061. The subgroup then concentrated their efforts
on: Marking gas/ electric facilities differently from other
underground facilities, the definition of delay and
disruption and the responsibility of each party, mitigating
excavators' down time losses and a unilateral enforcement
agency.
Issue No. 2:
Issues concerning warning devices, methods, standards
and responsibilities for underground facilities.
Areas researched by this subgroup included above ground
signage of underground facilities, the use of marker tape in
trenches, the responsibilities of excavators and underground
facility owner when excavation activities take place near
underground facilities and locate methods.
Issues Nos. 3 and 7:
Issues concerning design information, construction and
bid specification drawings and records, political
subdivision design responsibility, facility owner
approval of bid plans, design and engineering of
projects involving underground facilities and use of as
built underground facility plans.
The cost involved for each issues considered, how it
relates to the benefit received and the responsibility
for such cost.
Areas discussed included the size, detail and design of the
maps which involved research regarding map elevation, map
profiles and Computer Aided Mapping System ( CAM). Locating
and mapping abandoned facilities, mapping active and
inactive facilities and the cost for each issue was
researched.
Issue No. 4:
Improvements in the blue- stake system, such as one
number statewide, mandatory membership, blue- staking
techniques, excessive requests and enhanced services.
The areas discussed included mandatory membership for
underground facility owners, excessive locate requests,
enhanced locate service, locate marking techniques, a
statewide one call blue- stake telephone number and the
marking of multiple circuits.
RECOMMENDED CHANGES
TO THE UNDERGROUND DIG- IN LAW
1. An enforcement agency with equal authority over all
parties engaged in excavation activities near
underground facilities ( Issue No. 6).
Recommended change to present statute.
2. Mandatory blue- stake membership statewide for
underground facility owners ( Issue No. 4).
Recommended change to present statute.
The remaining areas discussed as stated under each issue in
Part I ( Pages 1 - 3) have been addressed in detail in
Part I1 ( Pages 5 - 15) .
It is the study group's recommendation these remaining areas
can be resolved on a local level through
excavator/ underground facility owner on going discussions.
PART I1
D E T A I L E D D I S C U S S I O N
AD HOC BLUE- STAKE UNDERGROUND STUDY GROUP
HB 2061 STUDY ISSUE FINAL REPORT
DETAILED DISCUSSION
Issues Nos. 1, 5 and 6 ;
his subgroup considered several areas for discussion under
each heading of worker safety, liability issues and
enforcement issues.
Areas discussed under worker safety included:
Responsibility for worker safety training, marking
gas/ electric facilities differently from other underground
facilities, legislating llsafetyliln to contracts when
completion penalties make no provision for down time,
responsibilities of the contractor when excavating near
underground facilities and clarification of what a locate
mark represents.
The subgroup and study group agreed to focus on marking
gas/ electric facilities differently from other underground
facilities. The consensus of the two groups was that all
underground facilities should be treated with equal concern
and that the implementation of a specific standard for
marking and excavation of gas/ electric facilities would
result in worker confusion and therefore present a safety
hazard for excavators.
Areas discussed under the liability issues included the
definition of delay and disruption, mitigate excavators down
time losses, punitive damages for disregard of the statute
and the responsibility for facility damage caused by a
subcontractor ( general contractor/ subcontractor
relationship) .
The subgroup and study group agreed to focus on the
definition of delay and disruption. Due to the variables
involved with each field situation involving delay or
disruption, it would be very difficult to write specific
language to address each condition. The existing statute is
appropriate and provides recourse for all parties concerned.
It was discussed and agreed that a contractor should
mitigate the delay and disruption resulting from down time
caused by an inaccurate blue- stake locate if possible; i. e.,
move to the other side of the street and continue the
excavation.
The areas discussed included current fines may not be
stringent enough to act as a deterrent for wanton disregard
of the statute and an enforcement agency with equal
authority over all parties engaged in excavation activities
near underground facilities.
RECOMMENDATIONS - Issues Nos. 1, 5 and 6:
1. Gas/ electric underground facilities should not be
marked differently.
No change recommended to present statute.
2. The liability issues are appropriately and fairly
addressed by the present statute.
No change recommended to present statute.
3 . An enforcement agency with equal authority over all
parties engaged in excavation activities near
underground facilities.
Recommended change to present statute.
4. On going discussions between contractor, underground
facility owners, municipalities and the enforcement
agency on issues involving underground facilities.
No change recommended to present statute.
Issue No. 2:
Above Ground Siqnaqe
Most recently adopted construction standards require front
lot placement of underground facilities. Because of this,
it is doubtful residents would approve of the placement of
signs in their front yards.
Considering the number of underground facilities utilized to
serve a residential development, it is possible that as many
as nine different signs indicating the various utilities
could be placed in one front yard. An existing subdivision
of one square mile served by underground facilities would
require approximately 2,992 signs to be placed at a cost of
$ 10.00 per sign.
The minimum cost for the material is $ 29,920.00, excluding
installation costs and is prohibitive from an installation
and maintenance prospective ( a mapping system would be
required to identify sign locations and a sign patrol
performed on a regular basis). The sign placement may also
be a hazard to the vehicular and pedestrian traffic and a
problem with vandalism exists.
In addition, it has been proven by the few underground
facility owners required to install signs; i. e., Southwest
Gas Corporation per Department of ran sport at ion
regulations, that signs have not proven to be a deterrent to
dig- ins. An informal survey of fourteen governmental
agencies was performed and the majority of the agencies felt
customerfs complaints of sign installation would cause major
political repercussions and would override any benefit in
deterring dig- ins.
Marker Tape
A survey was sent to several underground facility owners on
the effectiveness of marker tape. Some underground facility
owners discontinued the use of marker tape due to no
decrease in damage to underground facilities. The remaining
underground facility owners utilities who continued to
install marker tape could not confirm any improvement to the
dig- in situation. In the Phoenix and Tucson areas, Jones
Intercable, City of Mesa and U S West Communications install
marker tape and in the past, Salt ~ iver Project installed
marker tape with their facilities.
None of these companies could confirm marker tape to be a
deterrent to dig- ins, in fact, the City of Mesa reported
most cases involving damaged tape also resulted in damaged
underground facilities.
It should be emphasized that tape cannot always be placed
due to some underground facility installation methods; i. e.,
boring, jacking or the use of existing pipes or conduits.
An open trench condition would not exist in these
situations.
The overall effectiveness of the marker tape was also
discussed in the study group's meetings. It was stated that
studies were completed with excavations near marker tape.
The results showed the tape was dug into, however, it was
not discovered until found in the spoil pile. Also reported
were situations where the marker tape had been damaged but
not reported to the underground facility owner. If the
excavator damages the marker tape and does not report the
damage, who then is responsible when the underground
facility owner is subsequently unable to locate the line.
The study group expressed concern over the possibility of
confusing the excavator if he had worked in an area with -
marker tape and then moved into an area without marker tape.
Some contractors in attendance at the study group's meetings
stated they were in favor of the tape, indicating it gave
them additional protection. However, it was agreed
unanimously that marker tape could give excavators a " false
sense of security" and the group felt that marker tape
should not be mandated however could continue to be used on
a voluntary basis.
This subgroup agreed that the employer is responsible for
worker training, ensuring workers perform in a safe manner
and adhering to applicable codes, regulations and statutes.
The underground facility owners are responsible for
underground facility installations, providing locate
information and providing maps when appropriate. This
subgroup also encouraged improvements to: HB 2061
enforcement, locate methods and mandatory membership to the
one call system.
RECOMMENDATIONS - Issue No. 2:
The subgroup and study group agreed to the following:
1. Marker tape should not be mandated but continue to be
used on a voluntary basis. Marker tape is being used
in some areas, however, the study group recognized this
procedure is not a fail safe solution to the reduction
of dig- ins or an added safety precaution to the
excavator.
2. Above ground signage is not recommended due to the
potential hazard to pedestrian and the motoring public,
sign vandalism, adverse public opinion and prohibitive
maintenance costs. These signs are historically not a
deterrent and in addition, the cost would be passed on
to the ratepayer.
Issues Nos. 3 and 7~
Areas discussed include the size, detail and design of
facility maps, elevations, Computer Aided Mapping System
( CAM), mapping abandoned, active and inactive facilities and
the cost associated for each issue.
Through research, it became apparent that it would not be
possible for all underground facility owners to use the same
map scale due to the variety of scales currently in use.
The variety of scales is required to meet specific
operational needs of the various facility owners because of
the number or congestion of the facilities, this often
results in much larger map scales.
The use of one mandated scale for all facility owners would
result in many additional maps due to the large scale
required for congested facilities. While this would be
appropriate for the underground facility owner with a large
number of congested facilities, it would be entirely
unsuitable and extremely cost prohibitive for the facility
owner with minimal or uncongested facilities.
This subgroup investigated the potential for providing
elevations of underground facilities on facility maps and
determined the cost to be prohibitive. The following costs
were developed:
U S West Communications $ 5,735 per mile
Tucson Water $ 5,700 per mile
Arizona Public Service Co. $ 4,167 per mile
Southwest Gas Corporation Over $ 1,800 per mile
City of Mesa $ 7,000 - $ 8,000 per mile
These amounts indicate costs for developing profiles on all
underground projects, obtaining elevations every 100 feet
and at facility crossings and the cost of posting elevations
on as- built and facility maps.
The Computer Aided ~ apping System ( CAM) was discussed and it
was determined that Salt River Project, Arizona Public
Service Company, Tucson Water, City of Mesa and Southwest
Gas Corporation have already started the development
process.
The subgroup and study group agreed that facility owner
approval of bid plans should be limited to public works
projects and road improvenents. At this point, the ' IPublic
Improvement Project Guide" recently developed by the Central
Arizona Coordinating Committee was reviewed because of its
relationship to the study issues; i. e., design information,
construction and bid specification drawings, records and
political subdivision design responsibility. Because this
is a newly developed guide and not entirely proven, the
subgroup and study group agreed a trial period using the
guide should be completed before adoption or reference to
the guide occurs.
Because there is no specific date for commencement of
mapping abandoned facilities provided in HB 2061, the
subgroup questioned the effective date to begin mapping
abandoned facilities. The subgroup agreed that because no
date is provided, the effective date to commence mapping of
abandoned facilities would legally be the effective date of
HB 2061, which is September 20, 1988.
The subgroup raised a question that as of the completion of
this report has not yet been answered: If a facility owner
has abandoned a facility and is no longer financially
responsible for the facility; i. e., not paying taxes, is the
facility owner still legally required to map that abandoned
facility or to notify the excavator that the facility is
abandoned. The study group feels that clarification of this
abandoned line issue is necessary.
Another question discussed but not resolved was: If an
underground facility owner marks an underground facility
abandoned, and this requires an electronic signal or tracer
wire in order to locate and an excavator subsequently digs
through the line breaking the electronic connection, this
resulting in the facility owner being unable to locate that
line in the future. To resolve this situation at least one
utility will be required to maintain a duplicate set of
facility maps in order to identify abandoned facilities.
The study group agreed that underground facility owners must
be able to respond to the excavator and confirm if a
facility is abandoned or inactive. If the underground
facility owner cannot confirm the facility to be inactive,
then the underground facility owner must show the line to- be
active.
The subgroup and study group felt that section 40- 360.30
relating to " installation recordsIf as presently written is
adequate and appropriately describes those records and
therefore, should not be modified.
RECOMMENDATIONS - Issues Nos. 3 and 7:
The subgroup and study group agreed on the following:
1. Underground facility owner approval of bid plans should
be limited to public works projects and road
improvements. The recently completed l1Public
Improvement Project Guide" should be considered for use
by excavators and underground facility owners.
No change recommended to present statute.
2. I1Installation records1I as stated in Section 40- 360.30
should not be modified.
No change recommended to present statute.
3. Because of the different map scale requirements of the
various underground facility owners and the associated
cost for map conversion, one common map should not be
mandated for underground facility maps.
No change recommended to present statute.
4. Because of the prohibitive cost of development,
conversions and implementations, Computer Aided Mapping
should not be mandated for underground facility owners.
No change recommended to present statute.
5. Because of the prohibitive cost, elevations of
underground facilities should not be mandated to
underground facility owners.
No change recommended to present statute.
6. Active and inactive underground facilities will be
identified and verified by each underground facility
owner.
No change recommended to present statute.
Because of the broad scope of Issues Nos. 1, 5 and 6 and
because of the other subgroups had reviewed these issues,
this subgroup recommended it only consider the costs for the
items contained in Issue No. 3. The recommendation was
accepted by the study group.
Issue No. 4:
Mandatory membership was the first issue researched. It was
determined that ~ hio, Pennsylvania, Georgia, ~ alifornia and
Minnesota have mandatory blue- stake membership statutes and
generally there was little objection to the statutes.
The subgroup and the study group support the mandatory
membership approach and agree that consideration should be
given to small underground facility owners by providing for
a limited membership based on the number of customers.
Membership costs for small underground facility owners
should be spread evenly and fairly. Language to address the
blue- stake membership was not finalized as of the date of
this report and requires further clarification.
The subgroup felt that registration with the County
Recorder's Office of an underground utility representative
responsible for locating underground facilities was
ineffective. It was recommended that underground facility
owners register with the Blue Stake Center in their service
territory.
Consideration for contractors belonging to the Blue Stake
Center was also discussed. The general consensus was that
contractors should be encouraged to utilized the blue- stake
center and that mandatory membership may discourage
contractor participation.
It was suggested that contractors list the Blue Stake Center
used on the application for a contractor's license. This.
might add to the depth of awareness of the contractors. The
Arizona Corporation Commission's representative pointed out
that the mandatory membership would not be enforced unless a
fee is charged to the contractors. Increasing the level of
fines for excavators who blatantly violate the law was
discussed, however, it was generally felt that this would
cause an increase to the enforcement agency's personnel
force .
Markinq Techniques
The subgroup felt that it would be a good practice to have
consistent locate marks among the underground facility
owners in a local area. It was suggested a regional
committee be formed to address marking standards and
guidelines. This regional committee could be composed of
two members from the construction business, two members of
underground facility owners, with one member from the
enforcement agency and one member from the Blue Stake
Center.
Identification of multiple circuits by an underground
facility owner beginning January 1, 1989 was discussed.
Consideration by the study group was given to the Utility
Location and Coordinating Council's ( ULCC) guidelines.
However it was agreed not to recommend adoption of these
guidelines because they contain a variety of standards which
may be revised on a regular basis. It was agreed that
marking techniques should be addressed at a local level with
no change recommended to the present statute.
Excessive Requests/ Enhanced Service
The subgroup and study group agreed that the contractor
should limit his locate requests to the amount of work that
can be realistically completed in the 5 and 10- day time
frame. Enhanced services for unique job situations should be
discussed with the contractor on a case by case basis. Both
of these issues should be handled at the local level with no
change recommended to the present statute. These items are
recommended to the agenda items for the continuing
discussions between contractor and utility representative.
A suggestion was made to eliminate the 5- day marking period
and keep the 10- day period. This was not discussed in great
detail and should be brought up in the proposed continuing
meetings.
A statewide one call telephone number for blue- stake was
researched for the purpose of simplicity and awareness
level. This project was found to be cost prohibitive and
therefore, the subgroup and study group did not proceed on
this issue.
RECOMMENDATIONS - Issue No. 4:
The subgroup and study group agreed on the following:
1. Mandatory membership for underground facility owner.
Recommended change to present statute.
2. Excessive blue- stake requests and enhanced services are
handled at the local level.
No change recommended to present statute.
3. Marking techniques-- multiple circuits should be
identified by the underground facility owner starting
January 1, 1989.
No change recommended to present statute.
CONCLUSION:
The study group recommended two modifications to the present
statute which addresses mandatory membership to the Blue
Stake Center for underground facility owners and an
enforcement agency with equal authority over all parties
engaged in excavation activities.
It was agreed to by the subgroups and study group that most
of the areas discussed under each issue can either be
resolved at the local level or is presently and
appropriately addressed by a regulation, code or statute.
On going discussions between contractors, underground
facility owners, municipalities and the enforcement agency
are strongly recommended.
The study group appreciated the interest and time devoted to
the Ad Hoc Study Group by the study commission members. The
subgroup and study group members offer their assistance on
any issues that require further assistance.
Study Group Chairman:
Recording Secretary:
Issues 1, 5 and 6:
Chairman :
Chuck Desrosiers
Members :
Bettye Austin
Bill Burkel
Wayne Ekstrom
David Furrey
Conrad Gissort
Tamara Huddleston
Elaine Moffitt
Darrell Pischoff
Danny Weakland/
Chuck Hudson
Donna Wilson
Issue NO. 2:
Chairman:
Roger Eagle
Members :
Lance Barger
Dave Buchwald
Bill Burkel
Larry Daniel
Chuck Desrosiers
David Furrey
Jack Kearns
Ben Luster
Wayne Privett
Ben Luster
Luster contracting
Bonnie Coffey
Arizona Public Service Co.
Salt River Project
U S West Communications
Tucson Electric Power
Southwest Gas Corporation
Flowing Wells Irrigation District
City of Tucson- Water
Arizona Public Service Company
Tucson Underground Contractor's
Association
City of Mesa
Arizona Corporation
Commission
U S West Communications
U S West Communications
Jones Intercable
Trico Electric
Tucson Electric Power
Arizona Public Service Company
Salt River Pro j ect
Flowing Wells Irrigation
District
City of Mesa
Luster Contracting
Southwest Gas Corporation
Issues Nos. 3 and 7:
Chairman:
Gordan Nelson
Members :
Mike Bentley
Elton Buell
Neil Coffey
David Furrey
Tom La Rose
Rick Meyer
Keith Nath
Herb Sautter
Eric Vaughn
Nelson Pipeline
Nelco Construction
Southwest Gas Corporation
Arizona Public Service Company
Flowing Wells Irrigation District
Salt River Project
City of Tucson - Water
City of Mesa
City of Tucson
U S West Communications
Issue No. 4:
Chairman:
Jim Vincent Southwest Gas Corporation
Members :
Lance Barger
David Furrey
Delbert Garst
George Hilyard,
Beverly Hitt
Tom La Rose
Kim Lilly
Carlos Martinez
Dave Nicholson
John Short
Ed Snell
Jones Intercable
Flowing Wells Irrigation District
City of Mesa
Jr. U S West Communications
U S West Communications
Salt River Project
Arizona Blue Stake
Tucson Electric Power
City of Tucson
Arizona Public Service Company
Tricon Contracting